Connecting HS1 to HS2.

[Nym]

How are you going to use St. Pancras as a terminal station for them services? it's already full!

They should be looking at a tunnel that immerges in Central London on the NLL though to enable connections into St Pancras. That way you can have splitting international services at London, eg, Paris - St Pancras - Half proceeds to Birmingham CZS

And it's the cheapest option... Theres no point in tunneling further under London to attempt coming out at the Stratford Box, because you can't. You'd have to either come out at the St Pancras Portal or the next station you could call it at would be Ebbsfeleet.

Also, where you going to fit in all these high speed commuter services onto the line? It's planning on being 18tph off Euston with an ultimate capacity of 24tph all the way to Brum Airport...?

if St Pancras where to be linked in then it could use the link to Old Oak to branch off (Before Old Oak Common Sta) to some sidings for them to park out of use international trains from St P. 5 platforms really isn't enough!

 

[vtiman]

the javelins would be used as through services in my plan so wouldnt go in to st pancras anymore. also the services that I suggested would be through services so you wouldnt need as much end terminal capacity. obviously mml trains would have to go somewhere else - i have an idea about that too !

the argument that you use about st pancras being full could be applied to the nll too ! the thing is st pancras or euston isnt an end destination in its own right. someone going from say birmingham to docklands would rather have a train that took them as far as stratford then have to go to euston then change there. you then lose some of the high speed benefit ! so even if the terminal was euston, if some of the trains were through trains, you wouldnt need as much capacity at Euston.

similarly passengers heading to the continent could change at stratford (when they stop there !) or ebbsfleet or ashford.

 

[YesToHS2]

Seeing as there will be an all new tunnel directly connecting HS1 to HS2 couldn't some Javelin services bypass St Pancrass and stop at the Old Oak hub? I'm sure there is a demand for people wanting to bypass central London all together, Ashford is quickly becoming a destination in it's own right. http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/south-east/43368-/

 

[Nym]

the argument that you use about st pancras being full could be applied to the nll too !

Yes, but if you read the HS2 proposals they are to tunnel to an old 4 track section of the NLL and will not significantly effect NLL operations, by building some new bridges and widening viaducts.

 

[vtiman]

I think we are in agreement that it would not make sense to not connect both high speed lines, wherever the tunnels go ! In some ways this is the most important part of the line. In france the biggest weakness of the lgv lines is all the times lost transferring between Gares du Nord and Lyon and est, particularly when you consider that you could be 200 or 300 miles closer to your destination.

I also think the javelins would be better used as through trains. and that too recoup the cost of the tunnels as many trains as possible should bypass the classic london terminals. this could mean that the station chosen for terminating london services will not be as large as it would if every high speed train went there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
one idea as potential destinations for the javelins would require the reopening and electrification of the east west line from oxford to bletchley.

connecting this to hs2 which it will cross near calvert on current plans could provide direct services from kent to oxford and milton keynes. adding a further connection to the line that runs from bicester north to banbury and points north would give those in the area some benefit from hs2. Also build a parkway station where that line crosses the m40, perhaps in conjunction with the relocation of the nearby motorway services.

 

[LE Greys]

the javelins would be used as through services in my plan so wouldnt go in to st pancras anymore. also the services that I suggested would be through services so you wouldnt need as much end terminal capacity. obviously mml trains would have to go somewhere else - i have an idea about that too !

Bit of a problem with that, quite a few passengers are going to London, and so St Pancras is a much more convenient station for the West End, where most off-peak passengers and quite a few peak passengers would want to go. Perhaps it would be a good idea to put in one or two additional platforms somewhere on the triangle, connecting with the Northern Line and NLL. As for where they'd go, I'd divide about 50/50 between Heathrow and somewhere else, most likely 25% Oxford and 25% Stratford-upon-Avon (via Brackley).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think we are in agreement that it would not make sense to not connect both high speed lines, wherever the tunnels go ! In some ways this is the most important part of the line. In france the biggest weakness of the lgv lines is all the times lost transferring between Gares du Nord and Lyon and est, particularly when you consider that you could be 200 or 300 miles closer to your destination.

I also think the javelins would be better used as through trains. and that too recoup the cost of the tunnels as many trains as possible should bypass the classic london terminals. this could mean that the station chosen for terminating london services will not be as large as it would if every high speed train went there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
one idea as potential destinations for the javelins would require the reopening and electrification of the east west line from oxford to bletchley.

connecting this to hs2 which it will cross near calvert on current plans could provide direct services from kent to oxford and milton keynes. adding a further connection to the line that runs from bicester north to banbury and points north would give those in the area some benefit from hs2. Also build a parkway station where that line crosses the m40, perhaps in conjunction with the relocation of the nearby motorway services.

As I think I've said before, it would be a very good opportunity to rebuild Brackley Central. Possibly, it would be a good idea to reconnect to the Chiltern via the Banbury-Woodford line, thus giving a somewhat indirect route from Brackley to Oxford. Otherwise, it might call for an entirely new route, but it would serve a town of 14,000 people that currently has lots of commuters and no station. That might get some traffic off the M40.

 

[33Hz]

Hi everyone. First post here but I followed the link from the discussion at Skyscrapercity.


I think the biggest flaw in HS1 was the decision to route it into a terminus station. It was obvious that at some point a line would go north. St Pancras still could have been used, but perhaps turned into a multi-level station much like Antwerp Central.

However, we have what we have there and have to work with it.

I'd like to see an underground through station with 400 metre platforms running on a roughly SW-NE axis between Euston and St Pancras, north of the British Library and roughly under Phoenix Road. HS1 would be connected directly with tunnels running under the ECML. Heading west, tunnels would roughly parallel Marylebone Road out to Paddington, then follow the GWML to Old Oak Common. This would be south of and replace the proposed HS2 Euston access tunnel, but there would be a branch looping around into Euston.

This would give passenger access from both the Euston end and the St Pancras end, giving access to and from domestic services at each. I'd propose that each track have dual facing platforms, so that incoming international passengers can be let out one side, an on-train passport check carried out, then domestic passengers let in the other side. If we must persist with our isolationist stance, this seems like the best compromise.

I don't have a 3D view of the tube lines under the area, but this may need to be built under the Northern Line.


Old Oak Common should have a 6 way junction between HS2, the GWML and WCML. It's clear that a direct connection to Heathrow is needed to shift passengers onto rail for European destinations. The number of flights that can be removed in this way is nearly as many as the domestic flights that HS2 can remove. A link via the GWML would allow this to start before a dedicated HS2 spur.

I also suggested some years ago that highspeed services could go through the Crossrail tunnel, but accept that it isn't really compatible with 24 tph. Nevertheless a connection between Crossrail and HS1 at Stratford would allow Javelin services to divert through there - perhaps making it more useful for people in Kent.

You could then have:

- Through HS2-European services stopping in Central London (at Euston-St Pancras) rather than just Stratford or OOC. I think this is a must.

- Eurostar services to Bristol and South Wales once the GWML is wired.

- Early Eurostar services to Birmingham on the WCML.

- A Javelin style service on HS2 to places like Aylesbury. This could be a Buckinghamshire-Kent through service via Crossrail.

- Crossrail access to the WCML for Milton Keynes.

- Heathrow Express access to Euston.

- A diversionary route onto the WCML for HS2-classic gauge trains.


I think this section offers enough advantages that they should prioritise it and get it open soon after Crossrail.

 

[LE Greys]

Hi everyone. First post here but I followed the link from the discussion at Skyscrapercity.


I think the biggest flaw in HS1 was the decision to route it into a terminus station. It was obvious that at some point a line would go north. St Pancras still could have been used, but perhaps turned into a multi-level station much like Antwerp Central.

However, we have what we have there and have to work with it.

I agree. I think that Watkin's original plan in the 1890s was to build a through station somewhere east or north of London, or use the East London, to link his two lines, the Great Central and the South Eastern. Having done that, he would start his Channel Tunnel work. It's a pity that planners didn't study his ideas a little more.

I'd like to see an underground through station with 400 metre platforms running on a roughly SW-NE axis between Euston and St Pancras, north of the British Library and roughly under Phoenix Road. HS1 would be connected directly with tunnels running under the ECML. Heading west, tunnels would roughly parallel Marylebone Road out to Paddington, then follow the GWML to Old Oak Common. This would be south of and replace the proposed HS2 Euston access tunnel, but there would be a branch looping around into Euston.

This would give passenger access from both the Euston end and the St Pancras end, giving access to and from domestic services at each. I'd propose that each track have dual facing platforms, so that incoming international passengers can be let out one side, an on-train passport check carried out, then domestic passengers let in the other side. If we must persist with our isolationist stance, this seems like the best compromise.

I don't have a 3D view of the tube lines under the area, but this may need to be built under the Northern Line.

Interesting idea, but undoubtedly very expensive. The Northern Line is right at the bottom of the London clay, meaning that any tunnel below it would be in the chalk layers. I would tend to go for a surface station farther north, although that might require a people-mover to link with the other station (possibly no bad thing anyway). The new tunnel would be directly under the Circle Line, but I think it's technically possible. I like the dual platform idea, since it solves a lot of the problems associated with stopping at Stratford or Old Oak for passport control, and should have been implemented there.

Old Oak Common should have a 6 way junction between HS2, the GWML and WCML. It's clear that a direct connection to Heathrow is needed to shift passengers onto rail for European destinations. The number of flights that can be removed in this way is nearly as many as the domestic flights that HS2 can remove. A link via the GWML would allow this to start before a dedicated HS2 spur.

That would also allow the Shenfield-Paddington Crossrail services to run to Milton Keynes, which seems like a very good idea, and provides paths for HEX to run to Euston instead of Paddington, thus linking to Thameslink and saving a Tube journey between KX/StP/Eu and Paddington for passengers going north.

I also suggested some years ago that highspeed services could go through the Crossrail tunnel, but accept that it isn't really compatible with 24 tph. Nevertheless a connection between Crossrail and HS1 at Stratford would allow Javelin services to divert through there - perhaps making it more useful for people in Kent.

It might be better if the connection led to Liverpool Street, so that City commuters wouldn't have to wedge onto the Central Line to get to their offices. Without Shenfield services, there will be platform space, although they are a bit short for two 6-JAVs.

You could then have:

- Through HS2-European services stopping in Central London (at Euston-St Pancras) rather than just Stratford or OOC. I think this is a must.

I've suggested in the past that they could reverse at St Pancras to change crews (also accessing the ECML, so they could start at once). Running them is certainly essential, and the through station solution would be ideal. Whatever happens now will be a bodge of sorts.

- Eurostar services to Bristol and South Wales once the GWML is wired.

Worth serving all three capitals in Great Britain, so Edinburgh and Cardiff.

- Early Eurostar services to Birmingham on the WCML.

We could and should do that now, using the north curve at St Pancras, although Virgin won't be pleased.

- A Javelin style service on HS2 to places like Aylesbury. This could be a Buckinghamshire-Kent through service via Crossrail.

I've suggested using a connection at OOC for this, avoiding Crossrail capacity problems, and it ought to work. A second connection should be built north of Brackley Central to reach Banbury, either curving down to Oxford or heading north to Leamington Spa or Stratford-upon-Avon.

- Crossrail access to the WCML for Milton Keynes.

- Heathrow Express access to Euston.

Good ideas both.

- A diversionary route onto the WCML for HS2-classic gauge trains.

I think this section offers enough advantages that they should prioritise it and get it open soon after Crossrail.

Implement the WCML/ECML classic line connections now, the sooner the better.

 

[33Hz]

I've created a couple of Google Maps overlays to visualise what I described for those not familiar with the area.

Colours are:

Yellow - HS1
Green - HS2
Red - WCML
Blue - ECML
Purple - GWML / Crossrail


Overall London map:

Close up around Euston / St Pancras area:

 

[YesToHS2]

Nice work. Does the image describe an underground station stretching from Euston to St Pancras?

 

[33Hz]

Yes it does.

 

[YesToHS2]

I like it, would solve so many problems. Bit expensive for the current government though

 

[33Hz]

Well, they have to dig the tunnels anyway. I'm just saying put a station on it.

 

[LE Greys]

It would have to go a long way down to avoid the British Library, but I think still in the London Clay. I seem to remember a plan to dig a new access route into Lower Manhattan (through solid granite) which would cost far more than this, and yet New Yorkers still considered it. I know we don't have anything like their resources, but I reckon that the idea is feasible at least.

 

[Nym]

Thing is, for the amount of international services you want to be stopping in London theres no point in having a massive underground station, just link it into the station approaches and the start of HS1

 

[LE Greys]

Thing is, for the amount of international services you want to be stopping in London theres no point in having a massive underground station, just link it into the station approaches and the start of HS1

It seems likely that all through services would stop in London, even if just for passport control purposes. That's most likely two per hour, one from each branch (or ECML/WCML for the moment). Numbers might increase subsequently, there would be quite a few passengers going through. Seems as though we need a decent-sized station.

 

[Nym]

Passport checks would have to be done at the origin station anyway, so the trains would be entirely 'airside' if stopping in London it would make sense to do it at St Pancras, but I still don't see the need when stopping at Stratford would make much more sense... And be cheaper...

 

[LE Greys]

Passport checks would have to be done at the origin station anyway, so the trains would be entirely 'airside' if stopping in London it would make sense to do it at St Pancras, but I still don't see the need when stopping at Stratford would make much more sense... And be cheaper...

The point is that, when north of London, it would be an ordinary domestic train. Joe Bloggs who lives in Newcastle would be perfectly entitled to board with his super-off-peak return to York. Even if people aren't supposed to do this, some Charlie is bound to do it anyway. Therefore, you need some way to turf off everyone who does not have the right ticket before you leave London.

 

[Nym]

But then where is the benifit over using an HS2 service to Eutson, a pepole mover to St P and boarding a E* there?
DfT regulations for international rail services are the same as aircraft, so they'd all need de-training, a full security search of the train done, archways, frisks, luggage x-rays etc. then re-train onto the same one, now that process on an aircraft of similar passenger capacity to a E* takes about 30 - 40mins, full turnround time for a B744 or A388 is getting close to 2 hours, now I know that a lot of that time is boarding and alighting passengers, B744 = 45 or 35m and A388 = 1h or 45m or 37m. So you could say that the total checks cycle will take upto 1 hour. E* don't have a problem with this as their trains are always 'secure'. If there where a lot of jo bloggs' wanted to travel on an international service between NCL and YRK then you could split the train up into several sections, and board seperatly, theres also nothing to stop services joining and splitting where one set is secure and the other is not.

IMO the reigonal E*, DB UK or whatever should serve the reigons, stopping anywhere in London for passengers to alight is only going to complicate matters with regards to the DfT. Yes, you can stop at Stratford, Ebbsfleet or Ashford, as these have security equipment available, but passengers would not be able to alight these services except in cases of emergency.

If stations are built in the right place, then there is going to be no problem with passenger demand, and if you can get the TOCs into the IATA then all the better, start codesharing with the likes of AirFrance-KLM on routes such as Manchester and Birmingham to Lille and Paris. I'm sure AFKLM would be intrested in being able to compete with the likes of FR and EZY on price, but like I said, no-one is going to move away from their current airport or major station, so station placment IS everything, take one look at Manchester Airport and if you don't think the station should be there on the bloddy ovious land that there is, you need your head testing, all it currently houses is car parks and it's withing moving walkway distances of the G.T.I., Voyager Offices, T2 (Directly) and T1, T3 and Olymic House via GTI.

Now there is talk of an airside walkway between T1/T2, this could be extended to the 'Manchester International' HS2 station, and be used for internal flights between Heathrow and Manchester (no dowbt there will be a station at LHR), Now, there isn't too much demand for a HS line between 'Manchester' and 'Heathrow', but if you could clear security at Manchester and only have to 'transfer' at LHR then it would increase the benifits of such a service, moreso if the station was intergrated into T5 and followed on from LHR to go to LGW, with a portion of the train 'airside'. Now, I'd work out on the back of a fag packet that MAN - LHR by rail is about 1hr 10, 1hr 20, competative with air, MAN - LGW is getting closer to 2 hours, but linking the two directly, airside, would be of massive benifit, and directly replace some domestic flights if one can get BA, BD and VS to sell flights on them, BA and VS would proberbly want extentions to LGW. Currently there is about 2000 seats going MAN - LHR and 900 MAN - LGW each way per day, on it's own not really going to work for an hourly rail service, but tack it onto the back of another 200m Train through HS2, pick up more 'airside' passengers at brum and you're proberbly on to a winner.

 

[asylumxl]

All this talk of complex checks... Wouldn't life be so much easier if we were part of the Schengen agreement...

 

[Nym]

All this talk of complex checks... Wouldn't life be so much easier if we were part of the Schengen agreement...

I'd still want some security checks done, and no, not really, because unless the ROI joined aswell, ie. the whole of the CTA god knows where we'd end up, and we'd also be full of even more illigal workers.

IMO, international services through the tunnel should be treated with similar levels of security of aircraft, if an explosive device went off in the tunnel that was properly designed, it would take down the train, and everyone on it...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

How do they ensure that cabotage passengers on the Continent don't stay on board through to London at the moment though?

 

[LE Greys]

All this talk of complex checks... Wouldn't life be so much easier if we were part of the Schengen agreement...

I agree, although we really ought to forward-deploy the UK Border Agency to the EU's external borders if that happens. We would be relying on the border agencies in Greece, Romania and Latvia among others. A combined EU border agency would worry me, because that would mean that we would lose the right to decide our own immigration rules.

However, you have to remember that trains used to cross the Soviet border all the time, fully checked and supervised by the KGB Border Guards. Look at how they did it, speed it up, and there is your method for checking trains continuing north from London. The French can worry about trains heading for their country.

 

[Nym]

How do they ensure that cabotage passengers on the Continent don't stay on board through to London at the moment though?

UKBA Checks at each station, domestic passengers must be UKBA cleared

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That covers them getting on board, true - but how do they ensure that the domestic passengers do actually quit the train at Lille?

 

[j0hn0]

That covers them getting on board, true - but how do they ensure that the domestic passengers do actually quit the train at Lille?

electronic tagging

not the criminal bracelets but embed it in tickets

 

[Padav]

Hope I can provide some additional background information about Schengen, Britain's non-participation in the free movement area and the impact this has on high-speed rail (HSR) strategy/policy.

First of all, Ireland's non-participation in Schengen flows specifically from Britain's policy stance, not the other way round. Ireland would join Schengen tomorrow if it could but Ireland's shared border with the UK, ie. Northern Ireland, precludes this fundamental policy shift.

Secondly it is Schengen, not the Channel Tunnel Treaty, and the rigid manner in which the practical measures is obliges Britain to enact to maintain border integrity that are the root cause of problems associated with direct cross-border rail services.

The emphasis of UK border operations for some years has been on proactive prevention - that's why UK officials check your passports in France before you embark on a cross-chanel Ferry and/or Chunnel Shuttle. It's also this rationale that obliges you to go through border and immigration checks at Paris Gard du Nord, Bruxelles Midi or Lille Europe when you check in to board an inbound Eurostar to St. Pancras. The principle of reciprocity allows Belgian and French officials to locate themselves on the UK side to replicate the exact same procedure before people enter their territory - the motivation behind this proactive approach is a perception that a problem stopped before it enters UK territory is easier/cheaper to manage - it's a long and costly process to forcibly remove individuals/families against their will from UK territory?

All of this (nonsense as far as I'm concerned) would disappear overnight if the UK abandoned its isolationist stance and participated in Schengen - the main stumbling block here is an irrational public fear over immigration and the, largely unspoken, belief (utterly without foundation in my view) that adopting a pan-European strategy would be akin to opening the flood gates to a galaxy of benefit scrounging, population exploding, illegal immigrant families and bogus asylum seekers, ie. economic migrants - one such myth supporting this sentiment is that every man and his dog is determined to make his/her way to Britain rather than any other advanced Western European democracy simply because they've been told, by those who went before them, that the streets (of London essentially) are paved with gold and/or officials handing out free money at UK taxpayers expense.

Politics aside the practical implications of Britain's non-participation are profound for the development of cross border HSR services. Non-participation in Schengen, the relative isolationism it creates and the reciprocity it obliges was behind the half-baked plan to terminate all non-London UK origin HS services at Euston and transfer passengers using some Thunderbirds style people carrier along Euston Road to St. Pancras! The rationale being that this would avoid having to install costly immigration/border control infrastructure at every single UK origin point. Needless to say this notion has been firmly knocked on the head by plain old common sense - did transport strategists really believe potential travellers would have been happy to board a service in Manchester/Leeds/Newcastle et al, disembark at Euston, transfer down Euston Road, go through check in/baggage handling (again!) plus border control/immigration to board a cross border service, with all of the attendant time delays - think about the marketing implications; High Speed Rail is supposed to be; fast, direct, convenient and cost effective - the fact that such a notion (for exclusively domestic services on HS2) even reached the drawing board gives me serious doubt about the sanity of some transport strategists within the DfT!!!

There are also longer term implications; readers will doubtless be aware of the recent much publicised visit to St.Pancras of a DB ICE3 train, as a pre-cursor to the announcement of a planned direct service between Frankfurt/Amsterdam and London, which may well take in Rotterdam, Köln (airport and city centre), Liége, Bruxsel and Lille as intermediary stops before entering UK territory. The launch of this service and other direct links; Eurostar simultaneously announced their order for ten new Siemens trainsets and their intention to expand destinations to Amsterdam, Lyon and Geneva using this new rolling stock, is vital if HSR is to deliver the potential for modal transport shift envisaged by political élites driving these projects. If we imagine a burgeoning network of cross-border HSR services evolving over the next few decades, taking in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds in addition to London, to/from diverse mainland destinations; Barcelona, Bordeaux, Marseille, Lyon, Geneva, Turin, Milan, Munich, Frankfurt, Berlin, Amsterdam and many other transit stations. It's not difficult to see how the insistence on maintaining UK border integrity, due to non-membership of Schengen, could have commercially sensitive impacts upon decisions to implement such services?

I think Philip Hammond has seen the writing on the wall. He understands only too well that whilst opposition to HS2 may come from a relatively tiny minority, they are well organised, well financed (affluent part of the country), well connected (to the circles of power), lucid and coherent in their approach - why do you think the HS2 Action Alliance constantly plays down the NIMBY approach and concentrates on the business case - they know that approach appeals to the audience they are trying to convince; movers and shakers in the Westminster bubble.

So when it comes to promoting the case for HS2 Philip Hammond has switched his tactical approach and is placing much more emphasis on the environmental argument - he also understands that without the HS2>HS1 link the notion of direct HSR services between UK provincial locations and the European mainland are a non-starter and without those vital provincial services the prospect of passengers abandoning EasyJet, RyanAir and Jet2Com in large numbers for the comfort of a seat on an alternative HSR service will evaporate faster than any vapour trail in the sky!!!

 

[Striker]

Two things. Why do you say it's a myth that there are illegal immigrants trying to get into the UK? Try driving along the E40 near Calais at night and see how many you nearly hit. The French wash their hands of them, mostly, because they don't want the hassle of looking after them, as they're trying to get into the UK anyway. Why did the refugee camp at Sangatte develop? How do you explain the French having to clear out huge improvised tented cities in Calais and force ably remove them?

Secondly, even if you did remove the need for immigration, you wouldn't solve anything because of the need to screen passengers and bags for travel through the tunnel.

 

[Padav]

@Striker

My precise words were:

"every man and his dog is determined to make his/her way to Britain"

Of course there are migrants trying to gain entry to the UK - I didn't say there we none - but not every single migrant in the world wants to come to the UK - there's a world of difference.

Speaking of difference, there's also a huge contrast between relatively discreet security screening and the fortress like arrangements facing you upon arrival at Paris Gard du Nord.

The "over the top" security culture piggybacks on the requirements for border control/immigration procedures mandated by the UK's non-participation in Schengen. If the UK participates in Schengen and adopts a pan-European approach to immigration policy, the fig leaf of border integrity disappears and the aforesaid "security culture" is exposed?

 

[Striker]

@Striker

My precise words were:

"every man and his dog is determined to make his/her way to Britain"

Of course there are migrants trying to gain entry to the UK - I didn't say there we none - but not every single migrant in the world wants to come to the UK - there's a world of difference.

OK. However, you seem to be saying that a small increase in the number of illegal immigrants gaining access to the UK is an acceptable price to pay to remove border controls. Even this would be unacceptable to the public.

As we have not yet joined Schengen, your guesswork that numbers of immigrants trying to get into the UK would not significantly increase is just that. Guesswork. I think your belief is seriously flawed. By removing border controls you remove the need for immigrants to pay thousands to organised gangs to be sneaked into the country. You open up the opportunity to exponentially more people. You reduce the risk hugely to their own lives in their all or nothing attempts to cross the Channel.

And the UK is hugely more attractive to immigrants for one reason. Language. Many more speak English rather than French, German, Spanish etc. How else do you explain that they travel through lots of "rich" countries including Germany, France etc. to get to Britain?

@The "over the top" security culture piggybacks on the requirements for border control/immigration procedures mandated by the UK's non-participation in Schengen. If the UK participates in Schengen and adopts a pan-European approach to immigration policy, the fig leaf of border integrity disappears and the aforesaid "security culture" is exposed?

I don't think security for the Channel Tunnel is "over the top". The Tunnel is a major "postcard" target for terrorists. The fact that terrorists could quite easily kill hundreds of people in any city using various methods, yet they're still obssessed with aircraft despite all the security, speaks volumes. They're as interested in making a statement rather than the number of people they take out. Planes do that. By removing security for the Tunnel you'd be giving a huge invitation to terrorists to target a world landmark and wonder.

The fact that they could quite easily do damage by getting on any Bristol Parkway to Cardiff train does not justify removing security for the Channel Tunnel.